My problem with eating back exercise calories.

amymeenieminymo

I got an HRM, but honestly, as far as I understand, if you have your activity level set properly for your TDEE, you shouldn't need to eat back your calories.

Multipliers for your BMR to get to your TDEE:
1.2 for Sedentary - desk job and little to no exercise
1.375 for Lightly Active - light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk
1.55 for Moderately Active - moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk
1.725 for Very Active - hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk
1.9 for Extremely Active - hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or training

So for example, if your BMR is 1300 and you work out a couple times a week, you should eat 1,788 a day and not log/eat back exercise.

If you use this method you should not need to eat back your calories unless you do activities above and beyond your multiplier activity.

OR, you can be conservative and just eat back like 25% or 50% of your "burned calories" along with your BMR.

Setting your activity level should be according to your daily activity BEFORE exercise. For example I have a desk job so my activity level is sedentary. My husband does landscaping so he would likely choose moderate to very active. Then, any exercise we do over and above our daily activity is what you log and eat the calories back for.

The reason it doesn't work to set your daily activity level for ALL activity and exercise is it's too broad of a setting. Say you set it to moderately active....what exactly is moderately active? Some days I walk and burn 250 calories, other days I ride my bike and burn 400. I can even ride the exact same route and burn a significantly different amount of calories depending on my energy level, how much wind resistance I'm working against, etc.

There would be too much room for error and over or under eating. To the OP, I didn't have an HRM for the first eight months when I first started here and I successfully lost 20 pounds. I would just use what MFP said I burned but maybe not eat them all back, maybe just about 80%. Also, HRMs aren't that expensive, I have a nice Polar one for about $80. Keep your eye on sales and you might be able to snag one for a better sale price.

mixedfeelings

Thanks everyone for their advice.

Firstly - I hadn't looked on Amazon, and I have found a cheap HRM, which I will buy. Thank you for pointing me towards that

Secondly - I'm going to aim for my TDEE, which is about 1770 (I will use that website to work it out properly - right now I don't have a tape measure to fill in the details, so I'll have to borrow my neighbour's tomorrow!)

Thirdly - to answer the question "am I moving nearer to my goals" - I am, slowly. My goal isn't just about losing weight any more, it's about getting healthy, and a part of that is getting a healthy attitude towards food. I've been on a very heavily restricted diet of a long time (I posted about my experience here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/521480-1000-calories-or-less-a-day). In the past month, I've increased my food intake from under 1000 to 1450 (actually, today was 1600). That was really tough, and I lost weight today for the first time in ten days (I realise that's not a long time, however it was hard to increase and come out of my comfort zone, not lose weight, and sticking to my plan of increasing by 100 a week even when I hadn't lose a single ounce). So yes, I am nearer to my goals

Be careful, not all of them actually show calories burned! Which one are you looking at?

enginerd81

I eat back all my exercise calories and use the numbers that the machines give me. If I go running or mountain biking I use calculators found online to estimate calories.

For running and mountain biking I usually drop the estimate by 25% or so just to be safe. And yes I know the machine numbers tend to be high estimates as well. But they are lower than MFP numbers so I go with those.


The most important thing though... is that I took 1 month to see how my plan would work before I decided to NOT buy a heart rate monitor.

My plan worked. I have lost about a pound a week ( a little less if sometimes) . So I stuck with it. If my plan stops working before I reach my goal I will make a change.

Lots of estimating but its working. You just need to take the time to see how your body reacts to what your doing.

LorinaLynn

What do you do? Set up your calorie goals according to your TDEE and accounting for your activity level - that's exactly what I'm doing.

Hit up the website here;
http://www.fat2fitradio.com/tools/

Use the Military Bodyfat Calculator and then the Calories and Basal Metabolic Rate calculator to find your ideal calorie plan.

That's what I'd suggest. Either calculate your TDEE from another site, or just change your activity level to active or very active on here to include exercise, and don't log the exercise calories.

I never used a HRM and even they're not 100% accurate. The only thing way you're really going to know if you're eating the right amount is by your results... when you feel great, have tons of energy, are able to meet your fitness goals, and are losing the weight you want to lose.

And for someone just starting, running a mile in about 12:30 is great!

ccmccoy09

I've just started running (I'm dreadful at it, but someone on here talked about how she ran a ten minute mile and she inspired me - I run / crawl a 12.5 min mile (don't laugh!) and according to MapMyRun (which calculates by speed and distance measured by Google Maps) I'll burn about 150 calories for 24 mins. Then, my cross-trainer - it says I burn 300 for 60 mins, and the estimate says 701 cals, so I've been averaging the two to get about 490/500 or so.

But really, what does this mean? When I "run" (a good part is walked!), am I *really* burning 150? And the cross-trainer - a good work out for me is 20km in 60 mins, which leaves me warm and slightly sweaty - not exhausted, red hot, and dripping in sweat - is that really 490 calories?

Generally, (by runner's truth) jogging or walking fast you're burning an average of 100 calories per mile. According to Runner's World, you burn 50% more calories running than walking the same distance, which makes sense. Running fast is harder than walking slow. Once you get to 5mph (12 minute mile), walking is harder and you'll burn more calories walking 5mph than jogging 5mph. This article is old but explains it pretty well. http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html

I can't help you with a target calories per day. I asked my doctor, who referred me to a nutritionalist, but I think a very experienced trainer could help you with that as well. Good luck!

mjn18

bump

thecazstewart

I got an HRM, but honestly, as far as I understand, if you have your activity level set properly for your TDEE, you shouldn't need to eat back your calories.

Multipliers for your BMR to get to your TDEE:
1.2 for Sedentary - desk job and little to no exercise
1.375 for Lightly Active - light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk
1.55 for Moderately Active - moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk
1.725 for Very Active - hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk
1.9 for Extremely Active - hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or training

So for example, if your BMR is 1300 and you work out a couple times a week, you should eat 1,788 a day and not log/eat back exercise.

If you use this method you should not need to eat back your calories unless you do activities above and beyond your multiplier activity.

OR, you can be conservative and just eat back like 25% or 50% of your "burned calories" along with your BMR.

I'm having problems with losing anything and I believe this is due to being 1800-2000 cals under each week. But using the above formula suggests I should be eating over 2,200 calories per day....I know I would gain weight doing this.

My BMR is 1429 and I exercise 5 times a week. My weight is still refusing to budge.

ironanimal

I got an HRM, but honestly, as far as I understand, if you have your activity level set properly for your TDEE, you shouldn't need to eat back your calories.

Multipliers for your BMR to get to your TDEE:
1.2 for Sedentary - desk job and little to no exercise
1.375 for Lightly Active - light exercise/sports 1-3 days/wk
1.55 for Moderately Active - moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/wk
1.725 for Very Active - hard exercise/sports 6-7 days/wk
1.9 for Extremely Active - hard daily exercise/sports & physical job or training

So for example, if your BMR is 1300 and you work out a couple times a week, you should eat 1,788 a day and not log/eat back exercise.

If you use this method you should not need to eat back your calories unless you do activities above and beyond your multiplier activity.

OR, you can be conservative and just eat back like 25% or 50% of your "burned calories" along with your BMR.

I'm having problems with losing anything and I believe this is due to being 1800-2000 cals under each week. But using the above formula suggests I should be eating over 2,200 calories per day....I know I would gain weight doing this.

My BMR is 1429 and I exercise 5 times a week. My weight is still refusing to budge.

Once you have multiplied your BMR by a multiplier according to your Activity, you should deduct between 10% and 20%, depending on how much weight you have to lose, to create the caloric deficit that will make you lose weight.

On your BMR, Moderately Active puts you at 2214. Subtracting 10% from that as you don't have much weight to lose lands you at 1992 calories a day to lose weight. That gives you a deficit of 222 a day, 1554 a week, or 0.4 pounds a week. (Little over 34 weeks to goal)

Subtracting 15% from that as you don't have much weight to lose lands you at 1881 calories a day to lose weight. That gives you a deficit of 333 a day, 2331 a week, or 0.6 pounds a week. (Little over 22 weeks to goal)

Subtracting 20% from that, which is not the best option for lean mass preservation as you don't have much weight to lose lands you at 1771 calories a day to lose weight. That gives you a deficit of 443 a day, 3101 a week, or 0.75 pounds a week. (Little over 17 weeks to goal)

Use these numbers or don't - up to you

BerryH

I have had HRMs in the past, but honestly I've found they're not worth the hassle. The time I spend putting it on and setting it up is time I could be spending working out!

Even HRMs just give an estimate based on your level of effort, you can't truly calculate burn outside of the laboratory (you've seen those people running of treadmills wearing what looks like oxygen masks, right?).

The burn for walking and running is pretty consistent for a given weight and speed. You can get your speed and a very good burn estimate using a phone app like Runkeeper or Cardiotrainer which take these plus sex, height and age into account.

Gym machines, not so. Very few even ask your weight, let alone any of those other factors. I'd record 60% of what they give you to be on the safe side, or 80% if it at least asks your weight.

Bear in mind that whatever you burn while working out includes what you'd be burning if you were just sitting on the sofa, so if you really want to be fussy, take away about 10% to be on the safe side.

Personally, the exercise itself is more important that the weight loss, so I'll record the full estimated burn and eat all the calories to fuel my next workout fully.

katysmelly

I am in the same position as the OP. I may get a HRM, but my list of "things I want" is a long one.

You don't need a HRM to measure your heart rate. What I do is check my HR several times during my workout. I pay attention to what I'm doing at that point, and I attempt to estimate how much of my workout is at a given level of intensity. Then, I plug that information into an online HR-based calorie calculator.

It's a bit of work, and I'm still not sure that I'm getting perfectly accurate results, but I feel it's pretty decent.

For example, this morning, I climbed the hill by my house. I use a GPS phone app that tracks my speed and distance, running in the background.

I also have a stop-watch app on my phone which I've got preset to 10 seconds. I pause and take my HR a few times on my walk. I do it when I reach the farm gate at the top of the lane. I take it when I've reached another gate after doing a moderate climb. Then, I take it while doing the steepest climb (which I cannot do without pausing for breath several times. It's very steep and I sometimes have to use my hands.) I check it at the top. I check it at the same landmarks on the way back down. Meanwhile, I check my GPS tracker to see how fast I've been going. This gives me an idea of how long I spend moderately climbing, steep climbing, level walking, downhill, etc. I walk that lane and back to my front porch as briskly as I can and take my HR at the very end of it all. It's all a bit of a jumble of numbers, but I find that I can remember most of them pretty well. It helps that I've done the same hill/route four times this week. :laugh:

This enables me to get a fair idea of my average HR. I also break it down by time. I know I was climbing intensely, with a heart rate of at least 150, for about ten minutes. I know I was at a more moderate level of intensity for 30 minutes. I plug all that in, adding it up. (The gps app also records how long I am moving out of my total time, so even pausing is accounted for. )

I average out my various heart rates and plug that in for the total moving time, as well.

I compare it to calculators for "hiking across open country carrying less than 10lbs" for the length of time I was moving.

I go with the lowest total and put that on my exercise diary.

I'm doing that C25K thing so I know what you mean about the "running." I do the math. I add up the running intervals and the walking intervals and look up the calorie rates for the two different activities. I also check my heart rate at various points and try to estimate it on the calculator for comparison's sake.

I have to say that for those activities, I have not found the estimates on here particularly high. It may just be my body and weight that it works for. I don't know.

Bohohippy

I do eat my calories back unless I'm not hungry... MFP calories are largely wrong (i believe) my boyfriends football calories come to sometimes 400 for a 25 minute session, and altho he feels like it's a work out, I doubt it really burns that much in so little time, espcially since my old SW consultant said to burn a mars bar off you'd have to walk to Manchester and back or something... or that weight loss show that shows that lady do different challenges for different treats.

I use EA Active 2 on wii, it has a HRM and a monitor for the thigh and around 25 minutes burns a total of 140-170 depending on how well you work out, or how much effort you put in.

It might be good if you did invest in a HRM, it'll help you stop worrying xx

StephL0711

bump